French hypocrisy on war crimes

The U.K. and France are the latest countries to jump on the bandwagon to force Israel to investigate the accusations in the Goldstone report. Let us review the French reaction to her citizens being attacked in the Ivory Coast a few years back:

The present crisis began on 6 November when the government attack on Bouaké also killed nine French peacekeepers. The French president, Jacques Chirac, ordered the destruction of the Ivorian air force. In Abidjan Gbagbo’s supporters promptly turned on the expatriate French community.

None of this settled anything, but it did clarify the nature of the conflict. This was the first time in 40 years of postcolonial apprenticeship that the lives of French citizens in Africa had been so threatened. Everyone had been happy to watch Africans kill each other, but television images of tearful French evacuees stepping off planes outside Paris were another matter – almost enough to make viewers forget that French forces had killed Ivorian civilians and destroyed a sovereign state’s air force to reassure 15,000 compatriots and to avenge the deaths of nine soldiers.

[…] On 7 November 2004 there were minor skirmishes between Fanci, Ivory Coast’s national armed forces, and French Operation Unicorn soldiers. Although these were of no military significance, it would be unwise to underestimate their symbolic importance. Even before these confrontations, and despite the fact that it was operating under a UN security council mandate, Operation Unicorn was perceived as an occupation force. The disproportionate nature of its response confirmed this, sending a signal not just to Ivory Coast but to other client states in France’s sphere of influence. It is easy for the weight of history to give young soldiers the impression of being stuck in an isolated garrison on the remote tribal fringes of the empire. Although African heads of state – all fervent democrats, of course – sided with France, there was fierce condemnation in French-speaking countries of what had become a bloody colonial adventure.

There were no UN resolutions or worldwide outrage that the French were using disproportionate force on a former colony. There was no call for investigation of the deaths of civilians. There were no charges of war crimes. There was only the expectation that since French citizens were being attacked, France had the right to defend them with all means at her disposal.

Funny, isn’t it, how the French can get away with this, yet Israel cannot defend herself against eight years of missile attacks on her civilian population without raising the anger of the collective world community—including the hypocrites in France?

What time is it? That’s right. Israeli Double Standard Time. But don’t worry, it only occurs on days that end with a “y.”

Update: Found this after I posted. The hypocrisy is even worse.

UN and US back French intervention in Ivory Coast
France has received international backing for its intervention in its former colony, Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) where a civil war has been raging for five months. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that “welcomes the deployment of Ecowas (Economic Community of West African States) forces and French troops” and endorses the peace agreement signed by both the government and rebels in the current civil war.

A UN resolution backing France’s action. Wow. Words just fail.

This entry was posted in Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time, United Nations, World and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to French hypocrisy on war crimes

  1. Myackie says:

    why doesn’t the Israeli ambassador to the UN bring this up? Is it considered too vulgar for a diplomat to address this at the UN?

    Seriously, if I was ambassador to the UN I would make it a point to show how much hypocricy there is!

  2. cliff was from montreal says:

    The UN? What a joke.Right or wrong, they only listen to causes that serve their own interests, meaning the islamic majority.Last I heard ,france was pretty much looking more and more like an islamic state. So if I was an ambassador to the UN, I’d have to be on strong sedatives.

  3. Tatterdemalian says:

    “why doesn’t the Israeli ambassador to the UN bring this up? Is it considered too vulgar for a diplomat to address this at the UN?”

    He probably has. You won’t ever hear about it, though, because Israelis making reasoned arguments in their own defense doesn’t fit The Narrative.

Comments are closed.